Warn command ? (1 Viewer)

[Electrod]

Hello.

I just got an idea, but I don't know if it's a good one.
I was thinking about making a warning system that will count every warns of a player to know if he already have ever got warned for such or such reason.

For example, someone is rulebreaking.
Instead of trying to prevent him or slapping him, you'll use !warn <name of player> <eventually, the reason> then a message will appear to say that he have been warned for the concerned reason.
When you'll warn him for the second time, it will show that he have been warned for the second time and that the next time, he will get a punishment.
I think that a list of every available reasons would be more comfortable, like this :

1. Excessive insult
2. Chat/Voice spam
[ETC]
x. Other reason (with <the reason> in the chatbox just like the !call plug)

Eventually, it could automatically kick someone that obtained his third warns and also, admins could see every warns that a player got with !warninfo <name of player> (example), like :

=> Electrod <=
Excessive rage - 2 warns
Excessive spawncamping - 1 warn
[ETC]

In the case of the "x" reason (above), the concerned reason will be added to the list of the reasons, in order to limit the use of the "other reason" line.
Example, if rocketspamming wasn't on the list, an admin will choose the "x" line then he will write rocketspamming, it will warn the player then the rocketspamming reason will be automatically added to the list.
If this feature isn't possible, Kevin could add it manually after a request.

Just a suggestion.

 

[Noodl]

A plugin probably exists, but it seems redundant to me. It would be an acceptable system to alert admins to people, or as a self-policing system operated by the community, but if admins are there, it seems pointless if we can just do the usual.

 

[Electrod]

A plugin probably exists, but it seems redundant to me. It would be an acceptable system to alert admins to people, or as a self-policing system operated by the community, but if admins are there, it seems pointless if we can just do the usual.

I think that you didn't understand what I meant (I'm not sure though).

Imagines that someone have been warned (without the command) two times by you for rocketspamming, then he left.
Later in the day, an other admin come, he surprises the concerned player rocketspamming again, he will say that it's the first warn. In reality, that would be the third.

One day, you decide to come back in duel, because you missed the server (lel example), and you see him rocketspamming but you don't remember him.
You will say that it is the first warn.
In case you remember him, you won't know if he already got warned for this.

Outcome : he will have 4 warns and he will need two more left to have three (in reality, he will have six warns in totality) to get punished.
With the command, you will just have to check it with !warninfo as soon as you saw him rulebreaking then you'll punish him.

 

[IceStick]

Pessimistically speaking: that would cause loss of players.
I see this as if all the admins are holding grudges over players.
For those people who always break rules, it would seem pretty convenient, but for those who break insignificant rules every once and a while it would seem pretty harsh.
For example: A new player joins, doesn't know the rules even exist, gets a warning and the admin leaves, he thinks it's over while it's not *it never is, right?* another admin joins, warns him again, then after a day or two he breaks a rule again, he gets punished for something that isn't worth it!

Optimistically speaking: that would make rule breakers less active due to the fact that everything they do is monitored.

Overall: A good idea, if well-coded.

Please note that all of this is my own opinion, you can contradict me if you want, you know what will happen.

 

[Electrod]

Pessimistically speaking: that would cause loss of players.
I see this as if all the admins are holding grudges over players.
For those people who always break rules, it would seem pretty convenient, but for those who break insignificant rules every once and a while it would seem pretty harsh.
For example: A new player joins, doesn't know the rules even exist, gets a warning and the admin leaves, he thinks it's over while it's not *it never is, right?* another admin joins, warns him again, then after a day or two he breaks a rule again, he gets punished for something that isn't worth it!

Oh, I didn't precised it, but firstly let me tell you something.

Players have to respect the rules, even those that you calls "insignificant".
If they are in the rules list, it's to be respected, not to decorate.
If you think they're too insignificant, you can ask to Kevin to delete them, you can also hope to succeed.

More seriously, we can do this : if he have two warns for excessively spawncamping and two warns for rocketspamming, he won't be punished, he will have to wait until he reach 3 warns in a category.

Also, we can make a limited amount of warns to get punish (if needed!).
For example, 3 for rocketspamming, 5 for insulting, 3 for excessive spawncamp..., but if something is judged too excessive, it's up to the concerned admin to ban the concerned player manually, even without the warn.

Thank you to have given your opinion though !

Also, "please note that all of this is my own opinion, you can contradict me if you want, you know what will happen".
Don't even worry about it.

 

[IceStick]

Oh, I didn't precised it, but firstly let me tell you something.

Players have to respect the rules, even those that you calls "insignificant".
If they are in the rules list, it's to be respected, not to decorate.
If you think they're too insignificant, you can ask to Kevin to delete them, you can also hope to succeed.

More seriously, we can do this : if he have two warns for excessively spawncamping and two warns for rocketspamming, he won't be punished, he will have to wait until he reach 3 warns in a category.

Also, we can make a limited amount of warns to get punish (if needed!).
For example, 3 for rocketspamming, 5 for insulting, 3 for excessive spawncamp..., but if something is judged too excessive, it's up to the concerned admin to ban the concerned player manually, even without the warn.

Thank you to have given your opinion though !

Also, "please note that all of this is my own opinion, you can contradict me if you want, you know what will happen".
Don't even worry about it.

Great, I've been waiting for this.
Now that you've clarified it, it does make sense; yet, there are still some points I must point out.

First of all, do you really think some red text appearing will stop rule breakers from doing what they do? I think not.

Second, doing what's necessary at the time of act will prevent others from doing the same, I always notice it on DB, when someone gets slain for stealing, the stealing reduces, so when you just make a warning that appears to one player, it's not really effective.

Third, statistically speaking, the !call function didn't scare many people, once again, do you think this will?

Lastly, in your opinion, is an admin personally saying "Stop what you're doing" more efficient, or some text appearing saying "You have 1 warning for: [Reason]"?

Unfortunately, rule breakers aren't those kind people that will obey text, if no action was taken, they will just do it again, let's say that someone was warned and punished, he gets his warning-list cleared, right? They might just use the warning system to do what they want, and before they reach the limit, they just stop for some time and then do it again.

Also, "please note that all of this is my own opinion, you can contradict me if you want, you know what will happen".
Don't even worry about it.

I ain't worryin'!

 

[Electrod]

Lol, thanks to make my day more interesting, I was actually a little bored.

Great, I've been waiting for this.
Now that you've clarified it, it does make sense; yet, there are still some points I must point out.

First of all, do you really think some red text appearing will stop rule breakers from doing what they do? I think not.

Firstly, is it the goal of the warn system ? Read the followings quotes :

I was thinking about making a warning system that will count every warns of a player to know if he already have ever got warned for such or such reason.

Second, did I ever insinuated it ? I don't think so.
Also, we didn't tried it, so you might think whatever you want, you can't confirm your thought.
Anyway, I don't really care, scary or not scary, that isn't the goal.
In real life, when a policeman try to arrest a criminal, he don't try to make him afraid, he don't even give a damn.
It's up to the guy to continue or not, he will have been warned.
It's the same for the warn system.

Second, doing what's necessary at the time of act will prevent others from doing the same, I always notice it on DB, when someone gets slain for stealing, the stealing reduces, so when you just make a warning that appears to one player, it's not really effective.

Yes, of course, in dodgeball, because when you die in DB, you have to wait the next round to play, but the players generally wants to play without waiting.
But, for example, in hightower, do we have to wait to spawn when we die ? No.
Also, an admin can slap a rulebreaker at the same time that he warn him, everything is up to the admins though.
"so when you just make a warning that appears to one player, it's not really effective" : As I said, we didn't tried what I just suggested, so what you said isn't confirmed.

Third, statistically speaking, the !call function didn't scare many people, once again, do you think this will?

Once again, this isn't the goal of the warn system and it doesn't matter if it's scary or not, because the player will have been warned, but I'm gonna reply anyway.

=> If the !call function didn't scared many people, that's because people knew that the admins wouldn't react, and I've saw it.
Also, the !call was used by the community, by the players. The warn can be only used by admins, so in my opinion, it might scare people if they are conscientious of who warned them and if they care about still having an access to the server.
If they don't care, that is their problem.

Lastly, in your opinion, is an admin personally saying "Stop what you're doing" more efficient, or some text appearing saying "You have 1 warning for: [Reason]"?

Both, warning is something official, delivered by an admin, and the sentence too.
Also, imagines that there is a rocketspammer in duel.
An admin say "stop rocketspamming", but he continue.
=> first warn (and eventually a slap in the honnor of IceStick lelz).

Everything is possible, the warn might contribute to stop the rulebreakers, but it's not the goal (yes, I already told it).

Unfortunately, rule breakers aren't those kind people that will obey text

Not in every cases, it depends, I saw many times some cons-example of what you just wrote.
Sometimes, in duel, when I say "stop rocketspamming, that's forbidden", people just read what I wrote and they stop.
Sometimes, I need the intervention of an admin, he just say "stop doing this" then the rulebreaker stop as soon as he saw that it was an admin.
Sometimes, people are not listening to us because they simply don't understand English langage (any others reasons are possible though).

Making an action isn't an obligation to make them obey, and text isn't useless, counter to what you think.

Let's say that someone was warned and punished, he gets his warning-list cleared, right? They might just use the warning system to do what they want, and before they reach the limit, they just stop for some time and then do it again.

Only his amount of warn for the rule that he breaked will be cleared.
For example, if I have : 2 times excessively spawncamping and 3 times excessively spamming chat, the excessively spamming chat warns will be cleared, but not the other.
The last sentence is related to what I told : everything is up to the concerned admin, because every admins are rational, they are following their own rules about how to punish, when, for how long, with what, etc.

 

[IceStick]

I see, so it's not about actually warning players, it's just a reminder for admins.
Unless you'll keep a log file that contains all the warnings, this is pretty useless. If admins actually do rely on this, they will no longer ban players, they will just punish them as much as they see in the warnings list, for example:
I spawn-camped, an admin warned me, I stopped, when he left and another admin joined, I did it again, same thing happened, admin warns me and I stop, and when the third time comes, I get punished with a 1 hour ban or whatever the punishment becomes, after the ban is lifted, I do the whole thing again, and I will just get the same punishment!

Keep in mind that I said "If admins actually rely on this".

Seems like I didn't understand the purpose of the function, because your thread was kind of incomplete ._.

 

[Kitty Cat]

this thread's posts...tl;dr

 

[Noodl]

I see, so it's not about actually warning players, it's just a reminder for admins.
Unless you'll keep a log file that contains all the warnings, this is pretty useless. If admins actually do rely on this, they will no longer ban players, they will just punish them as much as they see in the warnings list, for example:
I spawn-camped, an admin warned me, I stopped, when he left and another admin joined, I did it again, same thing happened, admin warns me and I stop, and when the third time comes, I get punished with a 1 hour ban or whatever the punishment becomes, after the ban is lifted, I do the whole thing again, and I will just get the same punishment!

Keep in mind that I said "If admins actually rely on this".

Seems like I didn't understand the purpose of the function, because your thread was kind of incomplete ._.

This may surprise you but admins (or at least I) remember any player's name that we had to take some action on. "This guy is stealing" I get on private chat, "Oh, well, I've slayed him a few times a week ago, I even kicked him twice a day or two back, someone else also said the same, so it's timeban-time"

The only thing is, the severity of whatever is in question determines punishment, if someone's spouting tonnes of abusive racisms in a serious manner, I'd warn them myself, then simply ban them if they continued. What we're really focusing on is the system being a player-reminder for admins. Whether this is needed or not depends on the amount of players and such an admin goes through a day. It'd probably just be easier to have a database of slays/kicks that can be searched via alias or Steam ID to see if any action was previously taken, again, I believe this to be a redundant solution.

At the end of the day it depends on the rationality of the admin in question, the attitude of the player in question, and the act in question. Action always says more than text.

 

[Didixo]

 

[Electrod]

I see, so it's not about actually warning players, it's just a reminder for admins.
Unless you'll keep a log file that contains all the warnings, this is pretty useless. If admins actually do rely on this, they will no longer ban players, they will just punish them as much as they see in the warnings list, for example:
I spawn-camped, an admin warned me, I stopped, when he left and another admin joined, I did it again, same thing happened, admin warns me and I stop, and when the third time comes, I get punished with a 1 hour ban or whatever the punishment becomes, after the ban is lifted, I do the whole thing again, and I will just get the same punishment!

Keep in mind that I said "If admins actually rely on this".

Seems like I didn't understand the purpose of the function, because your thread was kind of incomplete ._.

Yup ._.

this thread's posts...tl;dr

I would've read all ._.

This may surprise you but admins (or at least I) remember any player's name that we had to take some action on. "This guy is stealing" I get on private chat, "Oh, well, I've slayed him a few times a week ago, I even kicked him twice a day or two back, someone else also said the same, so it's timeban-time"

The only thing is, the severity of whatever is in question determines punishment, if someone's spouting tonnes of abusive racisms in a serious manner, I'd warn them myself, then simply ban them if they continued. What we're really focusing on is the system being a player-reminder for admins. Whether this is needed or not depends on the amount of players and such an admin goes through a day. It'd probably just be easier to have a database of slays/kicks that can be searched via alias or Steam ID to see if any action was previously taken, again, I believe this to be a redundant solution.

At the end of the day it depends on the rationality of the admin in question, the attitude of the player in question, and the act in question. Action always says more than text.

That's true.
Why is it always true ._.

 

[Kevin]

Yup ._.



I would've read all ._.



That's true.
Why is it always true ._.

ye i dont say

 

[Electrod]

ye i dont say

D:

As nobody seems to like this suggestion, forget about it lel.
Thanks for the opinions though !

 

[Kevin]

the idea is good, we will see

 

[Electrod]

Oh, alright then

 

[IceStick]

D:

As nobody seems to like this suggestion, forget about it lel.
Thanks for the opinions though !

I was the only one being negative about it...

 

[Noodl]

I was the only one being negative about it...

Ahem.....

 

[IceStick]

Ahem.....

You were being natural.. not negative ._.

 

[Electrod]

You were being natural.. not negative ._.

Lol, are you about to argue for this ?